Case Number(s): 10-O-10874; 10-O-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769; 11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692; and 11-O-19248
In the Matter of: Kamran N. Khan, Bar # 256979, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Susan Chan, Deputy Trial Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Bar # 233229
Counsel for Respondent: Edward O. Lear, Century Law Group LLP
5200 W Century Blvd., #345
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Bar # 132699
Submitted to: Assigned Judge of State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 3, 2008.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 35 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: **. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
IN THE MATTER OF: KAMRAN N. KHAN (known as KNK)
CASE NUMBER(S): 10-O- 10874 (Nacpil);
10-O-11245 (Champlin);
10-O-11377 (Soto);
11-O-10769 (Christopher);
11-O-12051 (Taylor);
11-O-12912 (McNemey);
11-O-13692 (Pruitt);
I I-O-19248 (SBI)
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Facts: Case No. 10-O- 10874: Count One. (A) "The Nacpil matter":
1. On or about March 23, 2010, Manuel Nacpil and Julieta Nacpil (the "Nacpils") employed respondent d/b/a KNK Legal, to provide legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
2. On or about March 23,2010, and May 5, 2010, the Nacpils made installment payments of advanced attorney’s fees to respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 each, for a total of $3,500.00 paid as advanced attorney’s fees for legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
3. At no time did the Nacpils ever meet or talk to respondent. At no time did respondent perform any work on the Nacpils loan modification.
4. Respondent did not obtain a loan modification for the Nacpils.
5. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for the Nacpils, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
Conclusions. of Law: Case No. 10-O-10874: Count One (A) "The Nacpil matter":
By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from the Nacpils prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-10874: Count One (B) "The Nacpil matter":
6. The allegations in Count One (A) are hereby incorporated by reference.
7. At no time did respondent perform any work on the Nacpils loan modification.
8. Respondent did not obtain a loan modification for the Nacpils..
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-10874: Count One (B) "The Nacpil matter":
By failing to negotiate or obtain a loan modification or perform any other legal services of value in the representation of the Nacpils, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-10874: Count One (C) "The Nacpil matter":
9. The allegations in Counts One (A) through Count One (B) are hereby incorporated by reference.
10. During the time that the Nacpils were represented by respondent, the Nacpils were never able to speak directly to respondent. All information and legal advice that the Nacpils received from KNK Legal was given by the non- attorney staff of respondent. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that his non-attorney staff was giving legal advice to the Nacpils.
Conclusions of Law: 10-O-10874: Count One (C) "The Nacpil matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to give legal advice to the Nacpils, respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law in willful violation of rule 1-300(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-10874: Count One (D) "The Nacpil matter":
11. The allegations contained in Count One (A) through Count One (C) are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusions of Law: Case 10-O-10874: Count One (D) "The Nacpil matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to perform loan modification work and give legal advice to clients with little or no supervision by respondent, respondent failed to perform legal services with competence when he failed to supervise his non-attorney staff in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (A) "The Champlin matter":
12. In or around October 2009, Cynthia Champlin, a resident of Rhode Island, employed respondent dba KNK Legal, to provide legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification for Champlin’s Rhode Island property. Champlin was quoted $3,500.00 in advanced fees for respondent’s legal services and was informed she could make installment payments by the non-attorney staff of respondent.
13. Between November 30, 2009 through on or around March 29, 2010, Champlin paid respondent a total of $5,000.00 in advanced attorney’s fees.
14. Respondent failed to provide the legal services necessary to obtain a loan modification for Champlin and failed to perform any other legal services of `value in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
15. Champlin did not obtain a home mortgage loan modification. On or about June 9, 2010, Charnplin was served with foreclosure papers on her Rhode Island property.
16. During the time that Champlin was represented by respondent, Champlin was never able to speak directly with respondent. All of the information and legal advice that Champlin received from respondent’s office was given by the non-attorney staff of respondent.
Conclusions of Law: 10-O-11245: Count Two (A) "The Champlin matter":
By failing to provide any legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification or perform any other legal services of value in the representation of Champlin, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (B) "The Champlin matter":
17. The allegations contained in Count Two (A) are incorporated by reference.
18. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of Champlin Respondent did not cam any portion of the $5,000.00 advanced attorney’s fee paid by Champlin.
19. To date, respondent has not refunded any portion of the $5,000.00 in unearned fees to Champlin.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (B) "The Champlin matter":
By falling to refund $5,000 in unearned fees to Champlin, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (C) "The Champlin matter":
20. The allegations contained in Count Two (A) through Count Two (B) are hereby incorporated by reference.
21. During the time that Champlin was represented by respondent, Champlin was never able to speak directly to respondent. All information and legal advice that Champlin received from KNK Legal was given by the non-attorney staff of respondent. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that his non-attorney staff was giving legal advice to Champlin.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (C) "The Champlin matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to give legal advice to Champlin, respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law in willful violation of rule 1-300(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (D) "The ChampIin matter":
22. The allegations contained in Count Two (A) through Count Two (C) are hereby
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11245: Count Two (D) "The Champlin matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to perform loan modification work and give legal advice to clients with little or no supervision by respondent, respondent failed to perform legal services with competence when he failed to supervise his non-attorney staff in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (A) "The Soto matter":
23. In or around May 2010, Arturo Soto ("Soto") employed respondent d/b/a KNK Legal, to provide legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification. Soto met with Koomail Mooman ("Mooman") and Eric Lui, non-attorney staff of KNK Legal. Respondent was not present during the initial meeting. Mooman presented Soto with respondent’s fee agreement and informed Sore the cost of loan modification services was $3,500.00. Mooman informed Soto he would accept two payments as long as the Soto paid the second half of the advanced attorney’s fees within 30 days.
24. On or about May 1, 2010, and June 4, 2010, Soto made installment payments of advanced attorney’s fees to respondent in the mount of $1,750.00 each, for a total of $3,500.00 paid as advanced attorney’s fees for legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
25. At no time did Sore ever meet or talk to respondent. At no time did respondent perform any work on Sore’s loan modification.
26. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for Soto, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (A) "The Soto matter":
By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging; collecting and receiving fees from Soto prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (B) "The Sore matter":
27. The allegations contained in Count Three (A) Count are hereby incorporated by reference.
28. At no time did respondent perform any work on Sore’s loan modification.Respondent did not obtain a loan modification for Soto.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (B) "The Soto matter":
By failing to negotiate or obtain a loan modification or perform any other legal services of value in the representation of Soto, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (C) "The Soto matter":
29. The allegations contained in Count Three (A) through Count Three (B) are hereby incorporated by reference.
30. During the time that Soto was represented by respondent, Soto was never able to speak directly to respondent. All information and legal advice that Soto received from KNK Legal was given by the non-attorney staff of respondent. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that his non-attorney staff was giving legal advice to Soto.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (C) "The Soto matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to give legal advice to Soto, respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law in willful violation of rule 1-300(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (D) "The Soto matter":
31. The allegations contained in Count Three (A) through Count Three (C) are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 10-O-11377: Count Three (D) "The Soto matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to perform loan modification work and give legal advice to clients with little or no supervision by respondent, respondent failed, to perfona legal services with competence when he failed to supervise his non-attorney staff in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Facts: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (A) "The Christopher matter":
32. In or around March 20i0, John and Dana Christopher (the "Christophers") employed respondent d/b/a KNK Legal, to provide legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
33. On or about March 23, 2010, Eric Lui, non-attorney staff of KNK Legal sent an e-mall to the Christophers and requested they complete the attached documents and a sample hardship letter. Lui also requested the Christophers transmit an initial payment of $1,500.00 in advanced fees for legal services in connection with obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
34. On or about March 25, 2010, and April 23, 2010, the Christophers made installment payments of advanced attorney’s fees to respondent in the amount of $1,500.00 each, for a total of $3,000.00 paid as advanced attorney’s fees for legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
35. At no time did the Christophers ever meet or talk to respondent. At no time did respondent perform any work on the Christopers loan modification.
36. Respondent did not obtain a loan modification for the Christophers.
37. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for the Christophers, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-10769; Count Four (A) "The Christopher matter":
By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from the Christophers prior to fully perforndng each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
Facts: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (B) "The Christopher matter":
38. The allegations contained in Count Four (A) are hereby incorporated by reference.
39. At no time did respondent perform any work on the Christophers loan modification.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (B) "The Christopher matter":
By failing to negotiate or obtain a loan modification or perform any other legal services of value in the representation of the Christophers, Respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (C) "The Christopher matter":
40. The allegations contained in Count Four (A) through Coum Four (B) are hereby incorporated by reference.
41. During the time that the Christophers were represented by respondent, the Christophers were never able to speak directly to respondent. All information and legal advice that the Christephers received from KNK Legal was given by the non-attorney staff of respondent. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that his non-attorney staff was giving legal advice to the Christophers.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (C) "The Christopher matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to give legal advice to the Christophers, respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law in willful violation of rule 1-300(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (D) "The Christopher matter":
42. The allegations contained in Count Four (A) through Count Four (C) are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-10769: Count Four (D) "The Christopher matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to perform loan modification work and give legal advice to clients with little or no supervision by respondent, respondent failed to perform legal services with competence when he failed to supervise his non-attorney staff in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A).
Facts: Case No. 11-O-12051: Count Five (A) "The Taylor matter":
43. Respondent is not presently, and never has been, admitted to practice in the state of Maryland.
44. In or around September 2009, respondent, through his agent, transmitted a direct-mail solicitation to Wanda Taylor ("Taylor"), a resident of Maryland. The solicitation advertised a special loan modification program directed to members of the public who may be experiencing financial hardships and/or foreclosure. At no time had Taylor requested any correspondence from respondent.
45. Shortly after receiving the solicitation, Taylor contacted the telephone number listed on the advertisement. Taylor spoke to an individual who identified that he worked for respondent dba KNK Legal and pre-approved Taylor for a loan modification over the telephone.
46. In or around September 2009, respondent held himself out as licensed to practice in Maryland and accepted the representation of Taylor, a resident of Maryland, as a client, in order to negotiate and obtain a home mortgage loan modification for Taylor’s Maryland property when he provided Taylor with a KNK Legal Engagement Agreement, Attorney and Company Bio identifying respondent as KNK Legal’s attorney, and a Money Back Guarantee policy of all fees minus $800.00 to cover legal expenses already rendered.
47. On or about September 27, 2009, Taylor signed respondent’s fee agreement for loan modification services and completed an authorization for payment.
48. On or about October 19, 2009, Taylor paid respondent an advanced fee in the sum of $2,500.00.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O- 12051: Count Five (A) "The Taylor matter":
By holding himself out as licensed to practice in Maryland when he was not so licensed, and by accepting Taylor as a client, respondent practiced law in a jurisdiction where practicing is in violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, respondent willfully violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-300(B).
Facts: Case No. 11-O-12051: Count Five (B) "The Taylor matter":
49. The allegations contained in Count Five (A) are incorporated by reference.
50. Respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, and collected fees from Taylor, in a jurisdiction (Maryland) in which he was not admitted to practice.
51. Pursuant to Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation’s Revised Advisory of February 20, 2009, regarding "Loss Mitigation Consulting, Foreclosure Prevention, Mortgage Loan Modification, and Similar Services" Under the Maryland Credit Services Business Act (MCSBA) and the Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act (PHIFA) - foreclosure prevention, loss mitigation and loan modification services are considered "credit services businesses" and banned up-front fees in loan modifications. Credit service businesses must also be licensed with an exception for attorneys admitted to practice in Maryland.
52. Respondent is not presently, and never has been, admitted to practice in the state of Maryland.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-12051: Count Five (B) "The Taylor matter":
By entering into an agreement for, charging, and collecting fees from Taylor, when Respondent was not licensed to practice in Maryland, by charging and collecting an advanced fee for services related to foreclosure prevention, mortgage loan modification services in violation of Maryland’s Credit Service Businesses Act (MCSBA) and Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act (PHIFA) respondent wilfully entered into an agreement for, charged, and collected an illegal fee from Taylor in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A).
Facts: Case No. 11-O-12051: Count Five (C) "The Taylor matter":
53. The allegation contained in Count Five (A) through Count Five (B) are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-12051: Count Five (C) "The Taylor matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to perform loan modification work and give legal advice to clients with little or no supervision by respondent, respondent failed to perform legal services with competence when he failed to supervise his non-attorney staff in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, role 3-110(A).
Facts: Case No. 11-0-12912: Count Six (A) "The McNerney matter":
54. On September 1, 2008, New York Real Property Law, Article 8 -Section 265- b, Distressed Property Consulting Contracts became effective. Under New York law, distressed property consultants, as defined by New York Property Law, Section 265-b(1)(e), must, among other things:
¯ Not charge or collect upfront fees;
¯ Enter into a written, fully executed contract that fully discloses the exact nature of the services to be provided and the fee to be collected;
Allow homeowners to cancel the contract, without any penalty or obligation, within five business days after signing and provide the homeowner with notice of their right to cancel in the contract.
A "distressed property consultant" is an individual or a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity that, directly or indirectly, solicits or undertakes employment to provide consulting services to a homeowner for compensation or promise of compensation with respect to a distressed home loan or a potential loss of the home for nonpayment of taxes. Attorneys licensed in the state of New York are exempt.
55. Respondent is not presently, and never has been, admired to practice in the state of New York.
56. Respondent’s law office, KNK Legal, is a distressed property consultant as defined by New York Property Law, Section 265-b(1)(e).
57. In or around July 2009, respondent, through his agent, transmitted to Wayne and Jeanne McNerney (the "McNerneys") a KNK Legal Engagement Agreement and KNK Legal marketing and promotional materials, after the McNemeys discovered an intemet company, identified as Homeowner Legal Network, that had a "Federally Approved Program" that could modify their loan.
58. In or around July 2009, respondent held himself out as licensed to practice in New York and accepted the representation of the McNerneys, residents of New York, as a client, in order to negotiate and obtain a home mortgage loan modification for the McNerneys New York property when he provided the McNerneys with a KNK Legal Engagement Agreement, Attorney and Company Bio identifying respondent as KNK Legal’s attorney, Payment Form and Third Party Authorization Form.
59. On or about August 1, 2009, the McNerneys signed respondent’s fee agreement for loan modification services and completed an authorization for payment.
60. On or about August 27, 2009, the McNcrneys paid respondent advanced attorney’s fees in the sum of $2,612.00 for loan modification services.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-0-12912: Count Six (A) "The McNerney matter":
By entering into an agreement for, charging, and collecting fees from the McNerneys, when Respondent was not licensed to practice in New York, by charging and collecting an advanced fee in violation of New York law, respondent willfully entered into an agreement for, charged, and collected an illegal fee from the McNerneys in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A).
Facts: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (A) "The Pruitt matter";
61. In or around March 12, 2010, Timothy and Darlene Pruitt (the "Pruitts"), residents of Kentucky, contacted respondent dba KNK Legal after they saw respondent’s interact advertisement for loan modification services.
62. On or about March 26, 2010, the Pruitts retained respondent dba KNK Legal, to provide legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification for Pruitt’s Kentucky property.
63. Between April 2, 2010 through on or about April 30, 2010, the Pruitts paid respondent a total of $1,500.00 in advanced attorney’s fees for a home mortgage loan modification.
64. At all times relevant herein, the Pruitts did not have any communication with
respondent but communicated with respondent’s non-attorney staff regarding their loan modification.
65. Respondent failed to provide the legal services necessary to obtain a loan modification for the Pruitts and failed to perform any other legal services of value in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (A) "The Pruitt matter":
By failing to provide any legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification or perform any other legal services of value in the representation of the Pruitts, respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform legal services with competence in willful violation of rule
3-110(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (B) "The Pruitt matter":
66. The allegations contained in Count Seven (A) are hereby incorporated by reference.
67. Respondent did not perform any services of value on behalf of the Pruits. Respondent did not earn any portion of the $1,500.00 advanced attorney’s fee paid by the Pruitts
68. To date, respondent has not refunded any portion of the $1,500.00 in unearned fees to the Pruitts.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (B) "The Pruitt matter":
By failing to refund the unearned attorney fees to the Pruitts, respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned in willful violation of rule 3-700(D)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (C) "The Pruitt matter":
69. The allegations contained in Count Seven (A) through-Count Seven (B) are hereby incorporated by reference.
70. During the time that the Pruitts were represented by respondent, the Pruitts were never able to speak directly to respondent. All information and legal advice that the Pruitts received from KNK Legal was given by the non-attorney staff of respondent. Respondent knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that his non-attorney staff was giving legal advice to the Pruitts.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (C) "The Pruitt matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to give legal advice to the Pruitts, respondent aided a person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law in willful violation of rule
1-300(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (D) "The Pruitt matter":
71. The allegations eomained in Count Seven (A) through Count Seven (C) are
hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-13692: Count Seven (D) "The Pruitt matter":
By allowing his non-attorney staff to perform loan modification work and give legal advice to clients with little or no supervision by respondent, respondent failed to perform legal services with competence when he failed to supervise his non-attorney staff in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-110(A).
Facts: Case Nos. 10-O-10874; 10-O-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769; 11-O-12051;
11-O-12912; 11-O-13692: Count Eight:
72. The allegations contained in Counts One through Seven are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
73. In or about June 1,2009, respondent filed a fictitious business name statement for KNK Legal in Santa Clara County, California. Respondent listed his business address as 500 Chiquita Avenue, Suite 20, Mountain View, California 94901, which was also respondent’s official membership records address as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
74. In or about June 27, 2009, Koomail Mooman ("Mooman") entered into a commercial lease agreement for space located at 17122 Beach Blvd., Suite 200, Huntington Beach, California 92647 ("Huntington Beach") for the operation of KNK Legal. On the lease agreement, Mooman stated the Huntington Beach premises was for the sole use as "a Lawyer."
75. At all relevant times herein, Mooman is not presently, and never has been, admitted to practice law in the State of California.
76. On or around December 9, 2009, Mooman leased commercial space at 9550 Warner Avenue, Suite 340, Fountain Valley, California 92708 ("FountainValley"), and relocated KNK Legal’s business operations from Huntington Beach to Fountain Valley. Mooman and two non-attorneys, George Nguyen and Tracy Lee, entered into a lease agreement with Valley Plaza Executive Suites as Koomail Mooman, dba KNK Legal. Mooman identified himself as the sole proprietor of KNK Legal on the lease agreement.
77. At all relevant times herein, Mooman, a non-attorney identified himself as the sole proprietor of KNK Legal. KNK Legal employed two non-attorneys, Paul Lee and Tony Yu. KNK Legal is comprised of non-attorneys that provide loan modification services.
78. At all relevant times herein, respondent advertised himself as an attorney for KNK Legal.
79. From in or about June 1, 2009 through on or around August 2010, Respondent was affiliated with KNK Legal, a company operated by non-attorneys who offered loan modification services to distressed homeowners. The client hired Respondent through KNK Legal to represent the borrowers in loan modification services for an advanced fee. KNK Legal’s non-attorney staff administered the services with virtually no supervision from respondent.
Conclusions of Law: Case Nos. 10-O-10874; 10-O-.11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769;
11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692: Count Eight:
By entering into an agreement with Mr. Mooman whereby non-attorney staff would solicit and provide loan modification services to respondent’s clients, and by providing his name as attorney for use by Mr. Mooman and KNK Legal including his retainer agreement, respondent formed a partnership with a person who is not a lawyer where at least one of the activities of that partnership consisted of the practice of law in willful violation of rule 1-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case Nos. 10-O-10874; 10-O-11245; 10-O-1,1.377; 11-O-10769; 11-O-12051; 11-O-!.2912; 11-O-13692: Count Nine:
80. The allegations contained in Count One through Eight are hereby incorporated by reference.
Conclusions of Law: Case Nos. 10-0-10874; 10-O-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769;
11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692: Count Nine:
By entering into an agreement with and allowing KNK Legal to solicit and procure clients, by entering into an agreement with and allowing KNK Legal whereby KNK Legal would pay non-attorneys for client.referrals and provide loan modification services to respondent’s clients, by allowing KNK Legal to offer loan modification services to distressed homeowners using an attorney, and by allowing KNK Legal to then administer those clients’ cases and matters using respondent, respondent lent his name to be used as attorney by another person who was not an attorney in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6105.
Facts: Case Nos. 10-O-10874; 10-O-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769; 11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692: Count Ten:
81. The allegations contained in Counts One through Nine are hereby incorporated by reference.
82. At all relevant times herein, respondent mainlained a client trust funds account at Wells Fargo Bank (Account No. xxx-xxx-5903; (The account number has been excluded to protect the account from identity theft.) hereinafter "trust account" or "respondent’s trust account").
83. On or about October 1,2009, respondent added Koomail Mooman, a non-attorney, as a signer on his trust account. Mooman identified himself as "lawyer" on the trust account application.
84. From in or around November 2009 through on or around July 2010, Mooman withdrew a total of $43,305.00 from respondent’s client trust account.
85. From at least in or about November 2009, through at least in or about July 2010, respondent paid Mooman a percentage of the attorney’s fees he collected from his loan modification clients.
Conclusions of Law: Case Nos. 10-O-10574; 10-0-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769;
11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692: Count Ten:
By adding Mooman, a non-attorney to respondent’s trust account as a co-signer who falsely identified himself as a lawyer, by splitting the legal fees from his loan modification clients with Mooman, a non-attorney, respondent shared legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1-320(A).
Facts: Case Nos. 10-O-10874; 10-O-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769; 11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692: Count Eleven:
86. The allegations contained in Counts One through Ten are hereby incorporated by reference.
87. During the period between in or about November 2009 and August 2010, Respondent maintained a client trust funds account at Wells Fargo Bank (Account No. xxx-xxx-5903; hereinafter "trust account" or "respondent’s trust account"). (The account number has been excluded to protect the account from identity theft.)
88. During the period between November 2009 through on or around July 2010, respondent did not promptly remove funds which he had earned as fees from respondent’s CTA as soon as his interest in the funds became fixed and, instead, left his fees in respondent’s CTA for the payment of his personal expenses as needed.
89. During the period between November 2009 through on or around July 2010, Respondent repeatedly issued checks drawn upon Respondent’s CTA (client trust account to pay non-attorney staff, Paul Lee and Tony Yu, a total of $12,200.50 from respondent’s trust account, as follows:
Date Check Cleared; 11/1/09, CTA Balance $10,913.51
Date Check Cleared 2-22-10; Check Number 1143; Date Check Issued 2-19-10; Amount of Check $700.00; CTA Balance $2,053.53; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared; 3-3-10; Check Number 1153; Date Check Issued 3-3-10; Amount of Check $1,000.00; CTA Balance $3,114.18; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Tony Yu
Date Check Cleared; 3-11-10; Check Number 1157; Date Check Issued 3-8-10; Amount of Check $450.00; CTA Balance $2,521.11; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 3-19-10; Check Number 1165; Date Check Issued 3-17-10; Amount of Check 750.00; CTA Balance $2,571.00; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 3-26-10; Check Number 1168; Date Check Issued 3-15-10; Amount of Check $1,013.00; CTA Balance $4,316.80; Payor KNK Legal;
Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 3-31-10; Check Number 1174; Date Check Issued 3-30-10; Amount of Check $1,200; CTA Balance $1,474.68; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 4-7-10; Check Number 1177; Date Check Issued 4-5-10; Amount of Check $1,350.00; CTA Balance $1,990.46; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 4-13-10; Check Number 1181; Date Check Issued 4-9-10; Amount of Check $450; CTA Balance $2,750.33; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 4-19-10; Check Number 1191; Date Check Issued 4-16-10; Amount of Check $562.50; CTA Balance $$3,507.44; Payor KNK Legal;
Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 4-28-10; Check Number 1200; Date Check Issued 4-27-10; Amount of Check $400; CTA Balance $3,546.76; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 4-28-10; Check Number 1202; Date Check Issued 4-28-10; Amount of Check $550; CTA Balance $1,846.76; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 5-12-10; Check Number 1202; Date Check Issued 5-11-10; Amount of Check $2,475.00; CTA Balance $1,957.17; Payor KNK Legal;
Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 6-21-10; Check Number 1230; Date Check Issued 6-16-10; Amount of Check $800; CTA Balance $1,564.79; Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Date Check Cleared 7-16-10; Check Number 1246; Date Check Issued 7-16-10; Amount of Check $500; CTA Balance $949.82 Payor KNK Legal; Payee Paul Lee
Conclusions of Law: ,Case Nos. 10-O- 10874; I 0-O- I 1245; 10-O- 11377; ,I I-O- 10769;
I I-O-12051; I I-O-12912; l I-O-13692: Count Eleven:
By maintaining respondent’s fees in his client trust account for withdrawal as needed to
pay personal expenses, respondent commingled funds belonging to respondent in a client trust account in willful violation of rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Facts: Case Nos. 11-O-19248: Count Twelve "The SBI matter":
90. The allegations contained in Counts One through Eleven are hereby incorporated by reference.
91. From in or about June 1, 2009 through on or around August 2010, Respondent operated KNK Legal, a company operated by non-attorneys who offered loan modification services to distressed homeowners. The clients hired Respondent through KNK Legal to represent the borrowers in loan modification services for an advanced fee.
92. From in or about June 1, 2009 through on or around August 2010, respondent was retained by approximately 84 clients to provide legal services in connection with negotiating and obtaining a home mortgage loan modification.
93. Respondent’s client trust account records reveal from on or about July 1, 2009 through on or about July 2010, respondent collected a total of $167,297.00 in advance attorney’s fees for loan modification services, as follows:
Date Payment Made: 12/2/09; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payor: Allen Natseway;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/12/09; Amount Paid; $2,970; Payor: Almaden Homes, LLC
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 1/13/10 – 3/4/10; Amount Paid; $750; Payor: Angela Elizabeth Trinh Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/6/09; Amount Paid; $600; Payor: Annie Jones;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 7/15/10; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payor: Anthony and Tiffany Lenci
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 5/1/10-6/3/10; Amount Paid; $3,500; Payor: Arturo Soto;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 3/27/10; Amount Paid; $1,250; Payor: Arun Singh;
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 11/23/09-12/23/09; Amount Paid; $2,000; Payor: AT Engineering Services; Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 11/23/09-12/23/09; Amount Paid; $2,000; Payor: AT Engineering Services; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/2/09; Amount Paid; $1,450; Payor: Barbara Rathbun;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 4/8/10; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payor: Brian and Heather Mount;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 7/24/10; Amount Paid; $2,000; Payor: Cal and Michelle Sherrouse
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 10/31/09; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payor: Carmelo Pacheco;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 7/19/10; Amount Paid; $1,000; Payor: Cesar Bacamante Umali
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 11/13/09-3/18/10; Amount Paid; $5,000;
Payor: Curtis Byerly; Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 11/30/09- 3/29/10; Amount Paid; $5,000;
Payor: Cynthia Champlin; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/3/09; Amount Paid; $650; Payor: David Kimani;
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 12/8/09-12/18/09; Amount Paid; $1,000; Payor: Debt Services;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 4/30/10; Amount Paid; $1,000; Payor: Deepak Kumar;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 6/23/10; Amount Paid; $1,000;
Payor: Escomar International Incorporated;Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 10/30/09-11/13/09; Amount Paid; $1,750;
Payor: Edward K. Nishi; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 3/9/10; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payors: Gary and Cindy Knight Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 10/30/09-11/13/09; Amount Paid; $1,750;
Payor: Edward K. Nishi; Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 2/2/10 – 2/25/10; Amount Paid; $3,000; Payor: Gerald Ambrose; Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 2/2/10 – 2/25/10; Amount Paid; $3,000; Payor: Gerald Ambrose; Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 4/2/10 – 5/5/10; Amount Paid; $3,500;
Payor: Hector and Gabriela Marqueda; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 10/30/09; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payor: Huberto Costa;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 5/15/10; Amount Paid; $1,250; Payor: Inez German;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 1/22/10; Amount Paid; $3,500; Payor: Innovative Action;
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 4/14/10 – 4/26/10 ; Amount Paid; $1,000;
Payors: Irene and Miguel Garcia; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 7/8/10; Amount Paid; $3,000; Payor: Jaime Ann Calloway;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 1/8/10; Amount Paid; $950; Payor: Jay Thuyen Vo;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 10/30/09; Amount Paid; $3,000; Payor: Jean Dufresne
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/30/09; Amount Paid; $3,000; Payor: Jeannie Dillard;
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/31/09; Amount Paid; $750; Payor: Jeff Rose
Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 3/24/10-4/23/10; Amount Paid; $3,000;
Payors: John and Dana Christopher Payee: KNK Legal
Dates Payment Made: 11/3/09-1/27/10; Amount Paid; $5,500; Payor: Joseph Markow; Payee: KNK Legal;
Dates Payment Made: 4/5/10-4/8/10; Amount Paid; $3,500; Payor: Josh Cartwright;
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 5/31/10; Amount Paid; $1,300;
Payors: Joy Hickman and William Crews;Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 11/16/09; Amount Paid; $1,500; Payor: Judy A. Nelson
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 11/1/09; Amount Paid; $750; Payor: Karen Martinez;
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 10/24/09; Amount Paid; 1500; Payor: Lance Storey
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 11/4/09; Amount Paid; 3000; Payor: Laudalina B. Valentine
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 11/3/09-1/4/10; Amount Paid; 2900; Payor: Leonardo Escobedo
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 3/29/10-4/15/10; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Linda Killebrew
Payee: KNK Legal;
Date Payment Made: 4/3/10-5/7/10; Amount Paid; 3500; Payor: Loie Rivera
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 3/23/10-5/5/10; Amount Paid; 3500;
Payor: Manuel and Julieta Nacpil Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 5/11/10-7/30/10; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Mark Seay
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/12/09; Amount Paid; 750; Payor: Martin Brown
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 2/3/10; Amount Paid; 750; Payor: Mary Carter
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 1/12/10; Amount Paid; 2000; Payor: Melvin Burt
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/16/09; Amount Paid; 995; Payor: Michael E. Ward
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 12/17/09; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Michael Kitzman
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/3/09; Amount Paid; 1000; Payor: Michael Ward
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 1/17/10-2/1/10; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Michael Ybarra
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made:10/31/09-12/14/09; Amount Paid; 2700; Payor: Mike Westman
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made:12/29/09-3/18/10; Amount Paid; 3500; Payor: Nor Cal KRS
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made:11/15/09; Amount Paid; 1000; Payor: Norman Orr
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 3/24/10; Amount Paid; 500; Payor: Online transfer from NandP
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/11/09; Amount Paid;1490; Payor: Pamela Couch
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 2/16/10-3/4/10; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Patrick Miller
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 10/30/09-11/27/09; Amount Paid; 1500; Payor: Peggy Bishop
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 4/29/10-5/11/10; Amount Paid; 2800; Payor: Renee Carrico
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/23/09; Amount Paid; 2000; Payor: Renee Dunbar
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/23/09; Amount Paid; 2000; Payor: Renee Dunbar
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/30/09 – 1/8/10; Amount Paid; 1500; Payor: Ricardo Cerda
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 2/22/10 – 4/15/10; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Richard Finnerty
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/16/09 – 11/13/09; Amount Paid; 4000; Payor: Richard Olivas
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 4/17/10; Amount Paid; 2000; Payor: Ron Gray
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 7/27/10; Amount Paid; 1000; Payor: Ryan Panopio
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 2/11/10; Amount Paid; 2000; Payor: Sabrina Carthan
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 3/19/10-4/28/10; Amount Paid; 2750;
Payor: Saing Enterprises, Incorporated, Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 3/10/10; Amount Paid; 750; Payor: Saing Suen
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/17/09; Amount Paid; 995; Payor: Saint Brown
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/3/09; Amount Paid; 1495; Payor: Sandra Jenkins
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 2/19/10-3/24/10; Amount Paid; 3500;
Payor: Sharla or Grover La Porte; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 12/2/09; Amount Paid; 1500; Payor: Soon Lee
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 7/15/10; Amount Paid; 1500; Payor: Steve and Tammy Kibler
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/30/09; Amount Paid; 1500; Payor: Taeleipu Liliu
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 4/2/10-4/30/10; Amount Paid; 1500;
Payor: Timothy and Darlene Pruitt; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 1/16/10; Amount Paid; 500; Payor: Todd D. Arnold
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/2/09 – 11/30/09; Amount Paid; 745; Payor: Valerie Zeune
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 5/30/10; Amount Paid; 2400; Payor: Vincent and Denise Bravo
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 11/6/09; Amount Paid; 995; Payor: Yanita Vasquez
Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 4/15/10-5/26/10; Amount Paid; 2500;
Payor: Zabrina Garcia/Beatrice Moron; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 8/27/09; Amount Paid; 2612;
Payor: Wayne and Joanne McNerney; Payee: KNK Legal
Date Payment Made: 10/19/09; Amount Paid; 2500; Payor: Wanda Taylor
Payee: KNK Legal
94. Respondent did not fully perform each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform for his 84 clients, prior to demanding, charging, collecting or receiving the advanced attorney fees.
Conclusions of Law: Case No. 11-O-19248 "SB1 matter":
By negotiating, arranging or offering to perform a mortgage loan modification for a fee paid by a borrower, and demanding, charging, collecting and receiving fees from 84 clients prior to fully performing each and every service he had contracted to perform or represented that he would perform, in violation of subsection (a)(1) of Section 2944.7 of the Civil Code, Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code section 6106.3.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page two, paragraph A.(7), was December 16, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of December 16, 2011, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $9,301.67. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and that it does not include State Bar Court costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 2.2(b) states: "Culpability of a member of commingling of entrusted funds or property with personal property or the commission of another violation of rule 4-100, Rules of Professional conduct, none of which offenses result in the wilful misappropriation of entrusted funds or property shall result in at least a three month actual suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of mitigating circumstances.
Standard 2.4(b) states: "Culpability of a member of willfully failing to perform services in an individual matter of matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client."
Standard 2.10 states in pertinent part "Culpability of a member of a violation of any provision of the Business and Professions Code not specified in these standards or of a willful violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct not specified in these standards shall result in reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim .... "
Schullman v. State Bar (1976) 16 Cal.3d 631, in two matters, respondent failed to perform and in one of the matters, respondent failed to return unearned fee. Respondent was disbarred. In aggravation, respondent had a record of five priors; Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717, attorney in six separate matters, failed to perform; failed to communicate and misrepresented status of case to clients. Attorney received one-year actual suspension and had no priors in 28 years of practice; Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 700, attorney had not performed services for which he was retained, failed to communicate with clients regarding status of their cases,
repeatedly refused to respond to client inquiries, and failed to cooperate with a new attorney. The Court ordered a 45-day actual suspension, one-year probation and passage of the professional responsibility examination.
Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659, 666 ["unauthorized practice of law includes the mere holding out by a layman that he is...entitled to practice law"];In re Caldwell (1975) 15 Cal.3d 762, 771, fn. 3 [implied representation of entitlement to practice constitutes UPL]
In the Matter of Wells (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 896 (Respondent culpable of two counts of violating rule 1-300(B), which prohibits the practice of law in another jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of that jurisdiction’s regulation of the profession, culpability for charging an illegal fee, fai!ing to return unearned foes, failing tomaintain funds in a trust account, and three acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude. Respondent received two years suspension, stayed, with two years’ probation to include six months actual suspension, and until respondent pays restitution of foes collected, plus interest). See also In the Matter of Burckhardt (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 343 (one-year suspension for misconduct including
collecting an illegal fee for services not performed, UPL of a client in a criminal matter while on suspension, moral turpitude).
An attorney who repeatedly abandons clients may be suspended for at least one year. If the disregard is habitual or combined with misrepresentation, he/she may be disbarred. (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753). In Pineda, respondent received two years actual suspension. In mitigation, respondent cooperated with the State Bar and demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation. See Schullman v. State Bar (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 631, the Court found Respondent’s abandonment of clients to amount to moral turpitude. In aggravation, respondent had a record of five prior discipline. The Supreme Court ordered attorney be disbarred, holding that the record clearly revealed a common pattern of misconduct whereby he habitually and willfully disregarded the interests of his clients and failed to pursue legal action for which he had been retained.
Lydon v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1181, "willfulness does not require actual knowledge of the provision violated."
In the Matter of Taggart (Review Dept. 2001) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 302, 309, "Thus,
the term willful does not require a showing that respondent intended the consequences of his acts or omissions, it simply requires proof that he intended the act or omission itself."
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
OTHER CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES.
A. Restitution
i. Respondent must pay restitution including the principal amount of 10% per annum) to the payee(s) listed below. If the Client Security Fund ("CSF") has reimbursed one or more of the payee(s) for all or any portion of the principal amount(s) listed below, Respondent must also pay restitution to CSF in the amount(s) paid, plus applicable interest and costs.
Payee Allen Natseway; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 12/2/09;
Payee Almaden Homes, LLC; Principal Amount 2970; Interest Accrues From 11/12/09
Payee Angela Elizabeth Trinh; Principal Amount 750;
Payee Angela Elizabeth Trinh: Interest Accrues From 1/13/10 - 3/4/10
Payee Annie Jones Principal Amount 600.00 Interest Accrues From 11/6/09
Payee Anthony and Tiffany Lenci; Principal Amount 1500.00;
Tiffany Lenci: Interest Accrues From 7/15/10;
Payee Arturo Soto; Principal Amount 3500.00; Interest Accrues From 5/1/10
Payee Arun Singh; Principal Amount 1250.00; Interest Accrues From 3/27/10;
Payee AT Engineering Services; Principal Amount 2000;
Payee AT Engineering Services: Interest Accrues From 11/23/09;
Payee Barbara Rathbun; Principal Amount 1450; Interest Accrues From 11/2/09
Payee Brian & Heather Mount; Principal Amount 1500.00; Interest Accrues From 4/8/10
Payee Cal & Michelle Sherrouse; Principal Amount 2000.00
Payee Cal & Michelle Sherrouse: Interest Accrues From 7/24/10;
Payee Carmelo Pacheco; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 10/31/09
Cesar Bacamante Umali; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 7/19/10
Payee Curtis Byeriy; Principal Amount 2500.00; Interest Accrues From 11/13/09
Payee Cynthia Champlin; Principal Amount 3500; Interest Accrues From 11/30/09
Payee David Kimani; Principal Amount 650; Interest Accrues From 11/3/09
Payee Debt Services; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 12/8/09
Payee Deepak Kumar; Principal Amount 1250; Interest Accrues From 4/30/10
Payee Ecomar International Inc.; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 6/23/10
Payee Edward K. Nishi; Principal Amount 1750; Interest Accrues From 10/30/09
Payees Gary & Cindy Knight; Principal Amount 1500
Gary & Cindy Knight; Interest Accrues From 3/9/10
Payee Gerald Ambrose; Principal Amount 3000; Interest Accrues From 2/2/10
Payees Hector & Gabriela Marqueda; Principal Amount 3500;
Payees Hector & Gabriela Marqueda; Interest Accrues From 4/2/10;
Payee Herbert Kerschbauer; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 10/30/09;
Payee Huberto Costa; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 12/10/09;
Payee Inez German; Principal Amount 1250; Interest Accrues From 5/15/10;
Payee Innovative Action; Principal Amount 3500; Interest Accrues From 1/22/10;
Payee Irene and Miguel Garcia; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 4/14/10;
Payee Jaime Ann Calloway; Principal Amount 3000; Interest Accrues From 7/8/10;
Payee Jay Thuyen Vo; Principal Amount 950; Interest Accrues From 1/8/10;
Payee Jean Dufresne; Principal Amount 3000; Interest Accrues From 10/30/09;
Payee Jeannie Dillard; Principal Amount 500; Interest Accrues From 11/30/09;
Payee Jeff Rose; Principal Amount 750; Interest Accrues From 11/31/09;
Payees John & Dana Christopher; Principal Amount 3000;
Payees John & Dana Christopher; Interest Accrues From 3/24/10;
Payee Joseph Markow; Principal Amount 5500; Interest Accrues From 11/3/09;
Payee Josh Cartwright; Principal Amount 3500; Interest Accrues From 4/5/10;
Payees Joy Hickman & William Crews; Principal Amount 1300
Payees Joy Hickman & William Crews; Interest Accrues From 5/31/10;
Payee Judy A. Nelson; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 11/16/09;
Payee Karen Martinez; Principal Amount 750; Interest Accrues From 11/1/09;
Payee Lance Storey; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 10/24/09;
Payee Laudalina B. Valentine; Principal Amount 3000; Interest Accrues From 11/4/09;
Payee Lea Giddens; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 1/13/10
Payee Leonardo Escobedo; Principal Amount 2900; Interest Accrues From 11/3/09
Payee Linda Killebrew; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 3/29/10
Payee Loie Rivera; Principal Amount 3500; Interest Accrues From 4/3/10
Payees Manuel & Julieta Nacpil; Principal Amount 3500; Interest Accrues From 3/23/10
Payee Mark Seay; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 5/11/10
Payee Martin Brown; Principal Amount 750; Interest Accrues From 11/12/09
Payee Mary Carter; Principal Amount 750; Interest Accrues From 2/3/10
Payee Melvin Burt; Principal Amount 2000; Interest Accrues From 1/12/10
Payee Michael E. Ward; Principal Amount 995; Interest Accrues From 11/16/09
Payee Michael Kitzman; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 12/17/09
Payee Michael Ward; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 11/3/09
Payee Michael Ybarra; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 1/17/10
Payee Mike Westman; Principal Amount 2700; Interest Accrues From 10/31/09
Payee Nor Cal KRS; Principal Amount 3500; Interest Accrues From 12/29/09
Payee Norman Orr; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 11/15/09
Payee Online transfer from NandP; Principal Amount 500;
Payee Online transfer from NandP; Interest Accrues From 3/24/10
Payee Pamela Couch; Principal Amount 1490; Interest Accrues From 11/11/09
Payee Patrick Miller; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 2/16/10
Payee Peggy Bishop; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 10/30/09
Payee Renee Carrieo ; Principal Amount 2800; Interest Accrues From 4/29/10
Payee Renee Dunbar ; Principal Amount 2000; Interest Accrues From 11/23/09
Payee Ricardo Cerda; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 11/30/09
Payee Richard Finnerty; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 2/22/10
Payee Richard Olivas ; Principal Amount 4000; Interest Accrues From 11/16/09
Payee Ryan Panopio ; Principal Amount 1000; Interest Accrues From 7/27/10
Payee Sabrina Carthan ; Principal Amount 2000; Interest Accrues From 2/11/10
Payee Saing Enterprises, Inc ; Principal Amount 2750; Interest Accrues From 3/19/10
Payee Saing Suen ; Principal Amount 750; Interest Accrues From 3/10/10
Payee Saint Brown; Principal Amount 995; Interest Accrues From 11/17/09
Payee Sandra Jenkins; Principal Amount 1495; Interest Accrues From 11/3/09
Payee Sharla or Grover La Porte; Principal Amount 3500;
Payee Sharla or Grover La Porte; Interest Accrues From 2/19/10
Payee Soon Lee ; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 12/2/09
Payee Taeleipu Liliu; Principal Amount 1500; Interest Accrues From 11/30/09
Payee Timothy & Darlene Pruitt ; Principal Amount 1500;
Payee Timothy & Darlene Pruitt ; Interest Accrues From 4/2/10
Payee Todd D. Arnold; Principal Amount 500; Interest Accrues From 1/6/10
Payee Valerie Zeune; Principal Amount 745; Interest Accrues From 11/2/09
Payee Vincent & Denise Bravo; Principal Amount 2400; Interest Accrues From 5/30/10
Payee Yanita Vasquez; Principal Amount 995; Interest Accrues From 11/6/09
Payee Zabrina Gareia/Beatrice Moron; Principal Amount 2500;
Payee Zabrina Gareia/Beatrice Moron; Interest Accrues From 5/26/10
Payee Wayne and Joanne McNemey; Principal Amount 2612;
Payee Wayne and Joanne McNemey; Interest Accrues From 8/27/09
Payee Wanda Taylor; Principal Amount 2500; Interest Accrues From 10/19/09
ii. Respondent must pay above-referenced restitution and provide satisfactory proof
of payment and a status report of payment(s) to the Office of Probation with each Quarterly Probation Report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation.
2. Respondent understands that even after the three (3) year probation period expires, he will remain on actual suspension until restitution including the principal amount of 10% per annum) to the payees identified under Financial Conditions, Section. 1.A.(i), is paid in full and until respondent satisfies the Standard 1.4(c)(ii) obligation listed on page 4, Section D., Item No. 3(a)(i) of the stipulation.
Case Number(s): 10-O-10874 [10-O-11245; 10-O-11377; 11-O-10769; 11-O-12051; 11-O-12912; 11-O-13692; 11-O-19248]
In the Matter of: Kamran N. Khan
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Kamran N. Khan
Date: 12/17/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Edward O. Lear
Date: 12/20/11
Deputy Trial Counsel: Susan Chan
Date: 12/21/2011
Case Number(s): 10-O-10874 et al.
In the Matter of: Kamran N. Khan
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
1. On page 5 of the stipulation, the "X" in the box at paragraph E.(1) is deleted.
2. On pages 27 and 31 of the stipulation, at footnotes 11 and 18, respectively, "Case No. 11-O-12912" is deleted, and in its place is inserted "Case No. 11-O-12051."
3. On page 29 of the stipulation, under "Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties," paragraph 1.A.i., the first sentence is deleted, and it its place is inserted, "Respondent must pay restitution, including the principal amount, as set forth below, plus 10 percent interest per year from the date interest accrues from as set forth below, to the payee(s) listed below."
4. On page 29 of the stipulation, under "Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties," paragraph 1.A.i., payee Angela Elizabeth Trinh, "1/13/10 - 3/4/10" is deleted, and in its place is inserted "3/4/10".
5. On page 30 of the stipulation, under "Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties," paragraph 1 .A.i., payee Jeff Rose, "11/31/09" is deleted, and in its place is inserted "11/30/09".
6. On page 31 of the stipulation, under "Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties," paragraph 1 .A.i., payee "Online transfer from NandP" is deleted, and in its place is inserted "NandP".
7. On page 32 of the stipulation, under "Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties," paragraph 1.A.ii. is deleted, and in its place is inserted, "Respondent must provide satisfactory proof of restitution payment(s) made during a reporting period and a status report of payment(s) to the Office of Probation with each Quarterly Probation Report, or as otherwise directed by the Office of Probation."
8. On page 32 of the stipulation, the language at paragraph 2 is deleted, and in its place is inserted, "Respondent understands that even after the three (3) year probation period expires, he will remain on actual suspension until the restitution, including the principal amount plus 10 percent interest per year, to the payees identified under Financial Conditions, paragraph 1 .A.i., is paid in full, and until respondent satisfies the Standard 1.4(c)(ii) obligation set forth on page 4 of the stipulation at paragraph D.(3)(a)(i).
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Lucy Armendariz
Date: January 12, 2012
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on January 24, 2012, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND
ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
EDWARD O. LEAR
CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
5200 W CENTURY BLVD #345
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
ROBERT A.. HENDERSON, Enforcement, San Francisco
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 12, 2012.
Signed by:
Bernadette C.O. Molina
Case Administrator
State Bar Court